|
February 12, 2004idiots tend to stick togetherWhadda ya know? jane Fonda is sticking with John Kerry. That strategy makes perfect sense down South. When you're trying to scrape dogshit off your shoe, use a bigger pile of dogshit to do it. Makes perfect sense to me. Jane Fonda should have gone to jail years ago and Kerry's a dead man walking. They belong together.
Comments
Yep you gotta hate those war heroes who have seen the horror of war and press for peace. Posted by: Bill on February 12, 2004 09:39 AMOne interesting question is whether Kerry supported the Communist Party in any significant way back then, when he opposed the Vietnam War. I opposed this war and I was right. But I did not see how opposing "The War" meant I should become a Communist. The U.S. was simply wrong, it was a mistake, it was not worth killing or being killed, etc., regardless of whether you liked Communists. But I saw others become Communists as though one thing had to do with the other. I thought they were crazy and I was right. In about 1984 the Communist Party of the U.S.A. in effect disbanded politically, seeing they were going to get nowhere in the U.S. as Communists. They became Democrats. I saw them do this at the time. Others have documented this fact and tactic. Currently, the Communist Party Shell baldly reccommends to all its members that they vote Democratic. Regardless of the first question, then, the next question is whether Kerry is in effect a Communist. He is an elitist and has no use for thought except as a tactic of arbitrariness employed only to gain control, a classic Communistic view of reason, which makes it intrinsically useless, thus "secular" according to the Socialistic philosophy of "secular humanism" [which is actually a contradiction in terms, if it touts Relativism.] Kerry's thought is chaotic in this way. Kerry is also anti-Capitalist though he is rich because of Capitalism. This again is reminiscent of the double standard Communists apply to themselves, just as Hollywood Liberals criticize rich Capitalists when they too are rich Capitalists. Socialism is basically State Communism, or Communism is basically Socialism minus the State, according to Marx. Socialists, therefore, are Communists. Socialism is integral to Democratic philosophy, if not its main structural goal. Kerry is a Democrat. Therefore, he is a Communist. QED. Yet Jane Fonda has now become a Christian. Maybe Kerry will marry her next. Then they can both bask in the absolution conferred by the Holy Botox, as they doggedly and noblely work their way into Communist Heaven, otherwise known as Liberal Hell. Posted by: Ga-ne-sha on February 12, 2004 11:05 AMRight Bill, here's another 'Nam vet pressing for peace, the only way it can ever be achieved. By dint of armed strength. North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, the CINC of the NVA, is reported to have said in his memoirs, published in 1985, North Vietnam could not have won the war against the US without Jane Fonda and her anti-war crowd. Her visits to Hanoi at the point that we really had the NVA rocked back on their heels gave strength and encouragement to the people of North Vietnam, NOT TO SEEK PEACE, BUT TO CONTINUE TOWARDS A MILITARY VICTORY OVER THE USA AND SOUTH VIETNAM. Of course, they won that victory shortly thereafter. John Kerry marched in lockstep with Fonda and her traitorous gang, and Fonda admitted it yesterday on CNN, verifying the picture that has been circulated recently and saying that both she and John Kerry addressed the crowd where the photo was taken. For a better perspective of JF Kerry in those days, go to John Moore's "Useful Fools" blog at http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/ There's a difference between a dove of peace and a vulture of treason. Most of know that difference, but Bill, you might work on YOUR bird recognition some. Posted by: Rivrdog on February 12, 2004 11:52 AMI know the difference between the dove of peace and the hawk of war. I'll kill that fucking dove every time. Posted by: Acidman on February 12, 2004 02:18 PMLet's see. You had a deferment from Vietnam. You wouldn't have served if you didn't because you won the draft. And you're an expert on what that war is good for. John Kerry goes to Vietnam and comes back decorated out the wazoo. He decides that the war that he went and fought was a bad idea and that he wants to stop the slaughter of innocent American men and millions (yes, millions) of Vietnamese civilians. Whose opinion should we take more seriously? The chickenhawk or the war criminal? Posted by: inTheJungle on February 12, 2004 07:49 PMI certainly meant "war hero" instead of war criminal. I was busy thinking about Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Posted by: inTheJungle on February 12, 2004 07:50 PMhttp://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/ The Viet Cong sure weren't interested in peace. Posted by: Andrea Harris on February 12, 2004 08:57 PMINTHEJUNGLE, If John Fucking Kerry had first hand knowledge of the raping, maiming and killing of innocent civilians and did not report it to superior officers, he is guilty of war crimes. I would never denigrate his war-time service to this country. However, that does not give him a free pass for his post-war treachery. Posted by: rightisright on February 12, 2004 09:20 PMDearest Billy and "In The Jungle." You are complete fucktards of the highest magnitude. How dare you hide behind the service of a politico to try and poke us in the forehead of righteousness. I have seen the horros of war. I met a little girl (about 8 years old) in Srbenica. She wanted to introduce me to her Mom who was asleep. This little girl was picking flowers by the side of the road. Concerned that she was alone in a dangerous are, I escorted her to the place where her mother was sleeping. To my surprise, it was a graveyard. Her mother had been murdered by Milosovich's thugs for being a Muslim. There is one fundamental truth; if you want to influence the behavior of scum bags who want to (in)effectively control the lives of others (yes, communists included), the most efficient way to do it is by using their language: fear. FUCK YOU to lecture anyone on the Kumbaya approach to globalization. This is the fundamental flaw of liberalism; the role of Government is to show people the right way to behave and they will naturally adopt it. What Bullshit. The scumbags will use that knowledge to break your system and install themseves as the control mechanism. AGAIN, FUCK YOU AND HAVE A NICE DAY! MAJ DAN MULCAHY, US ARMY Posted by: MAJ Dan Mulcahy on February 12, 2004 10:32 PMRIGHTISRIGHT: "If John Fucking Kerry had first hand knowledge of the raping, maiming and killing of innocent civilians and did not report it to superior officers, he is guilty of war crimes." And so is the entire US military, if you want to put it that way. Wake up, numbskull. Vietnam was a bad idea.
What's treacherous about speaking up against a government with which you disagree? Oh yeah, I forgot, if you disagree with the Republicans, it's treason. And since you have glossed over the point of my comment, should I follow the arguments of you (who has no idea what's going on), or him, who does? That's what I thought. Posted by: inTheJungle on February 12, 2004 10:41 PMMAJOR DAN! "Dearest Billy and "In The Jungle." You are complete fucktards of the highest magnitude. How dare you hide behind the service of a politico to try and poke us in the forehead of righteousness. I have seen the horros of war. I met a little girl (about 8 years old) in Srbenica. She wanted to introduce me to her Mom who was asleep. This little girl was picking flowers by the side of the road. Concerned that she was alone in a dangerous are, I escorted her to the place where her mother was sleeping. To my surprise, it was a graveyard. Her mother had been murdered by Milosovich's thugs for being a Muslim." Do you have a point about Kerry's service in Vietnam? Didn't think so. "There is one fundamental truth; if you want to influence the behavior of scum bags who want to (in)effectively control the lives of others (yes, communists included), the most efficient way to do it is by using their language: fear." Yeah, great job so far. Vietnam showed us how well that works. The fundamental rule of combat is to KNOW YOUR ENEMY. Remember that one from OCS? "FUCK YOU to lecture anyone on the Kumbaya approach to globalization." What does globalization have to do with anything? " This is the fundamental flaw of liberalism; the role of Government is to show people the right way to behave and they will naturally adopt it. What Bullshit. The scumbags will use that knowledge to break your system and install themseves as the control mechanism. AGAIN, FUCK YOU AND HAVE A NICE DAY! MAJ DAN MULCAHY, US ARMY" Take it easy, Major Dan. Anti-liberal paranoia gets you nowhere. I can tell it's paranoia because you aren't making sense. Posted by: inTheJungle on February 12, 2004 10:46 PMYeah DICKHEAD, I do have a point to make about Kerry's service: BIG FUCKING DEAL! That was Viet Nam...get over it! You obviously know dick about combat. The number 1 rule is not know the enemy, it's don't get shot! But what do I know, I didn't go to OCS! And by the way FUCKTARD, I ain't anti-liberal, I'm anti-Kerry. But don't worry, as GEN Clark said, "Kerry will implode in an intern issue!" Hope you enjoy losing the election in 2004 along with more seats in the House and Senate! Posted by: MAJ Dan Mulcahy on February 12, 2004 10:59 PMHanoi Jane should have been hung on the White House lawn. We have not seen the end of her - she's returning to acting and will be in a film with J-Ho. Allow me to puke. Posted by: Lori on February 12, 2004 11:19 PMI can tell you have no point because you have to swear and call me names. But OK, let's go. "Yeah DICKHEAD, I do have a point to make about Kerry's service: BIG FUCKING DEAL!" Then why did you get so fussy about my post that says that I trust his views on that war? I mean, if it doesn't matter, who cares? You are what Maddox called a giant self-collapsing vortex of hypocrisy.
Awww right, you got me there. The first rule of GETTING INVOLVED in a conflict is know your enemy. I'm still right. The first rule of actually fighting is don't get shot. You've got a point with that. On balance, I still win. I'm still waiting for some substantive point from you, Major Dan.
The fact that you're praying for scandals reveals to me how little confidence you have in your own candidate, Major Dan. Tell you what, I'll forgive Georgie for spending the first 40 years of his life as an alcoholic cokehead failure if you forgive Johnny for any marital infidelities that he may have committed.
If the Dems do lose, it will be because Billy Bobs like you are too lazy to get edumacated. Posted by: inTheJungle on February 12, 2004 11:25 PMHey Ducky (That's You INTHEJUNGLE), I'll continue this tommorrow after I have made the world safe for Democracy. Suffice it to say, you should call me the Bus Driver because I'm about to take your narrow ass to school. Posted by: MAJ Dan Mulcahy on February 13, 2004 12:18 AMMy, you really are grasping at straws, GA-NE-SHA. No, I'm not a communist. Just a proud American. By the way, is this, like, the 1950s? Who the hell gets accused of being a communist anymore? Get with the times. You're supposed to call me unpatriotic if I dissent from the party line now. Posted by: inTheJungle on February 13, 2004 02:27 PMINTHEBUNGHOLE, I'm back. First let me say, we ought to do a show on Fox together. They'd pay top dollar for this stuff. Having gotten that out of my system. I'm gonna stoop to your level and attempt to do this without profanity. It will be considerably less entertaining than last night's posts, but I've hurt your feelings and I'm sorry. Your new nickname is my Little Ducky. The allusion comes from Taranto's Best of the Web at the Wall Street Journal's site. You know the Journal? The Times is the newspaper read by folks who think they run the country. The Journal is read by folks who do run the country. Here's that paragraph: "On 5 June 1995 an adult male mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) collided with the glass façade of the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam and died. An other drake mallard raped the corpse almost continuously for 75 minutes. Then the author disturbed the scene and secured the dead duck. Dissection showed that the rape-victim indeed was of the male sex. It is concluded that the mallards were engaged in an "Attempted Rape Flight" that resulted in the first described case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard." I'm also going to adopt your childish and annoying habit of copying and then answering each sentence. "I can tell you have no point because you have to swear and call me names. But OK, let's go." No dic...Ducky. Profanity is a way to get a point across. The point is you have made a number of ignorant, baseless statements and you backed them up with no logic. Why should I show you any intellectual respect, when you have obviously adopted a position on an issue with no fundamental understanding of its complexity. "Then why did you get so fussy about my post that says that I trust his views on that war? I mean, if it doesn't matter, who cares? You are what Maddox called a giant self-collapsing vortex of hypocrisy." Fussy Ducky? I mean really. I didn't get fussy, I got pissed-off. Again, yuo've adopted the position of of an idiot who himself doesn't grasp the concept. See, here's the problem. Kerry's liberal position says Viet Nam is bad, because innocent people are getting hurt. Viet Nam wasn't just about stopping the north from taking over the south. It was about stopping the spread of communism. This goal was articulated in a policy called Containment. Containment as a policy is the last Grand Strategy this country had in foreign policy until this Bush Administration. It was developed and articulated by a Democrat - Truman (who I admire, so I'm clearly not anti-Democrat). Now I'm not gonna explain why Bush's vision is considered a Grand Strategy and Reagan/Carter/Nixon/Bush/Clinton's foreign policies weren't. This is complex reasoning and I don't want to lose you. For that explanation, I recommend you read: So where was I? Oh yes, Containment. Viet Nam is a great example of losing the battle, yet winning the War. Containment was a logical, consistent, methodical method that we successfully used to break communism. Am I making any sense yet Ducky? "Awww right, you got me there. The first rule of GETTING INVOLVED in a conflict is know your enemy. I'm still right. The first rule of actually fighting is don't get shot. You've got a point with that. On balance, I still win." No...you're a bad Ducky! Knowing the Enemy has nothing to do with getting involved in a conflict, a logical, consistent and methodical security policy (like, yep -You guessed it - Containment. Is what you use to determine those issues that you are willing to got to war over. And while we're on the topic. War is always the last instrument of power any government uses (except an adminstration that wants to take the headlines off the fact that the President got his freak on with an 18 year old intern) to implement its foreign policy. See Ducky, there are 4 instruments of power that any logical thinker of foreign policy and influence uses to frame any given issue. Those instruments are Diplomatic, Informational, Military and Economic. Just remember the acronym DIME an you'll be OK. President Kennedy (another Democrat) used elements of the diplomatic instrument (negotiations, treaties, etc.), the informational instrument (public affairs and public diplomacy) and the economic instrument (sanctions, embargoes, aid) prior to committing troops to Viet Nam. So the war began normally and logically enough. Ducky, I'll be right back to continue this lesson in a second.
INTHEBUNGHOLE, I'm back. First let me say, we ought to do a show on Fox together. They'd pay top dollar for this stuff. Having gotten that out of my system. I'm gonna stoop to your level and attempt to do this without profanity. It will be considerably less entertaining than last night's posts, but I've hurt your feelings and I'm sorry. Your new nickname is my Little Ducky. The allusion comes from Taranto's Best of the Web at the Wall Street Journal's site. You know the Journal? The Times is the newspaper read by folks who think they run the country. The Journal is read by folks who do run the country. Here's that paragraph: "On 5 June 1995 an adult male mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) collided with the glass façade of the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam and died. An other drake mallard raped the corpse almost continuously for 75 minutes. Then the author disturbed the scene and secured the dead duck. Dissection showed that the rape-victim indeed was of the male sex. It is concluded that the mallards were engaged in an "Attempted Rape Flight" that resulted in the first described case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard." I'm also going to adopt your childish and annoying habit of copying and then answering each sentence. "I can tell you have no point because you have to swear and call me names. But OK, let's go." No dic...Ducky. Profanity is a way to get a point across. The point is you have made a number of ignorant, baseless statements and you backed them up with no logic. Why should I show you any intellectual respect, when you have obviously adopted a position on an issue with no fundamental understanding of its complexity. "Then why did you get so fussy about my post that says that I trust his views on that war? I mean, if it doesn't matter, who cares? You are what Maddox called a giant self-collapsing vortex of hypocrisy." Fussy Ducky? I mean really. I didn't get fussy, I got pissed-off. Again, yuo've adopted the position of of an idiot who himself doesn't grasp the concept. See, here's the problem. Kerry's liberal position says Viet Nam is bad, because innocent people are getting hurt. Viet Nam wasn't just about stopping the north from taking over the south. It was about stopping the spread of communism. This goal was articulated in a policy called Containment. Containment as a policy is the last Grand Strategy this country had in foreign policy until this Bush Administration. It was developed and articulated by a Democrat - Truman (who I admire, so I'm clearly not anti-Democrat). Now I'm not gonna explain why Bush's vision is considered a Grand Strategy and Reagan/Carter/Nixon/Bush/Clinton's foreign policies weren't. This is complex reasoning and I don't want to lose you. For that explanation, I recommend you read: So where was I? Oh yes, Containment. Viet Nam is a great example of losing the battle, yet winning the War. Containment was a logical, consistent, methodical method that we successfully used to break communism. Am I making any sense yet Ducky? "Awww right, you got me there. The first rule of GETTING INVOLVED in a conflict is know your enemy. I'm still right. The first rule of actually fighting is don't get shot. You've got a point with that. On balance, I still win." No...you're a bad Ducky! Knowing the Enemy has nothing to do with getting involved in a conflict, a logical, consistent and methodical security policy (like, yep -You guessed it - Containment. Is what you use to determine those issues that you are willing to got to war over. And while we're on the topic. War is always the last instrument of power any government uses (except an adminstration that wants to take the headlines off the fact that the President got his freak on with an 18 year old intern) to implement its foreign policy. See Ducky, there are 4 instruments of power that any logical thinker of foreign policy and influence uses to frame any given issue. Those instruments are Diplomatic, Informational, Military and Economic. Just remember the acronym DIME an you'll be OK. President Kennedy (another Democrat) used elements of the diplomatic instrument (negotiations, treaties, etc.), the informational instrument (public affairs and public diplomacy) and the economic instrument (sanctions, embargoes, aid) prior to committing troops to Viet Nam. So the war began normally and logically enough. Ducky, I'll be right back to continue this lesson in a second.
All, sorry about the double post. I thought Ducky might need to read this twice to get it. Just kidding, actually I made a mistake. Then, it spun ought of control as Policy makers (as typically happens in Democratic administrations) began controlling the targetting process and forcing us to live by constraints that hamstrung the War effort. Consequently, we had to fight with one hand effectively tied behind our back. The Johnson administration didn't do this out of spite. LBJ was terrified that if we got to close to the Chinese border (read to far North in Viet Nam), the Chinese would pour across the barder the same way they poured across the Yalu in Korea15-20 years earlier. Some, but not all of those constraints made sense. Is this substantive enough for you Ducky. I'm trying to keep it simple...not as simple as when I'm using profanity, but simple anyway. Do I win yet? "The fact that you're praying for scandals reveals to me how little confidence you have in your own candidate, Major Dan. Tell you what, I'll forgive Georgie for spending the first 40 years of his life as an alcoholic cokehead failure if you forgive Johnny for any marital infidelities that he may have committed." I'm not praying for scandals Ducky. I'm deeply saddened at the state of the Democratic Party. Clinton and McAuliffe are rapidly turning this into a 1 party system by dragging the democrats out of the mainstream. Roosevelt put my Grandfather back to work with the New Deal. I'm just, honestly, ashamed that Democrats would accuse Bush of being a draft-dodger for serving in the Guard and being a cokehead, without any credible evidence or allegation, while simultaneously defending Clinton who wrote a letter to his ROTC instructor explaining that he was going to England because he couldn't conscientously serve the country. Additionally, Bill's own brother Roger made a credible allegation to the police that his brother Bill was all coked up and on coke at that very minute. This is the height of hypocrisy, but it is the hallmark of the new democratic party: anything for power including double-standards.
"If the Dems do lose, it will be because Billy Bobs like you are too lazy to get edumacated." I'm not a Billy-Bob, and I think I've effectively pinned the unedumacated label on you. Any time you want to compare parchments, just start waddling Ducky. This from your response to Ga-Ne-Sha: "By the way, is this, like, the 1950s? Who the hell gets accused of being a communist anymore? Get with the times. You're supposed to call me unpatriotic if I dissent from the party line now." No Ducky, this is not the 1950s, even though the policy of containment was articulated then. Ga-Ne-Sha never questioned your patriotism, she simply asked if you were a communist. Communism is not a political ideology. It is an economic ideology. Hmmm...no I'm not gonna try and explain this one to you. I simply don't think you'd get it. So, where are we. I think I'll backslide. YOU'RE AN IDIOT. A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FUCKTARD. WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE WORLD WOULD FILL A GNAT'S ASS. YOU'RE AN ASSHAT, A PILLOCK AN ADDLEPATED TWIT. A COMPLETE FUCKWIT WITHOUT REMORSE. A DICKHEAD, A FESTERING BOIL ON THE ASS OF CHAUCER'S COOK . I HAVE NO IDEA HOW YOU PUT YOUR PANTIES ON IN THE MORNING ALL BY YOUR LONESOME YOU VACUOUS SHITBIRD. THE ONLY GOOD THING ABOUT YOU IS THAT YOUR TESTICLES HAVE CLEARLY ROTTED OFF IN YOUR STUPIDITY. CONSEQUENTLY YOU CAN'T PROCREATE. FUCK YOU YOU DICKHEADED NUMBSKULL. DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE YOU TRY TO MATCH WITS WITH A NORMAL HUMAN BEING. YOU'RE ONLY EMBARASSING YOURSELF. YOU ARE A BAD DUCKY, AND I HAVE NO USE FOR YOU! Happy Valentine's Day, Major Dan Posted by: MAJ Dan Mulcahy on February 13, 2004 09:33 PMJungle Boy, obviously you do not look at your own thoughts. Are you a Democrat? Posted by: Ga-ne-sha on February 13, 2004 10:26 PM"First let me say, we ought to do a show on Fox together. They'd pay top dollar for this stuff." They would never let me on. I don't sit around and drool in awe at Bill O'Reilly.
Don't do it for my benefit. Try to cobble together a sensible argument and you might learn something.
"On 5 June 1995 an adult male mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) collided with the glass façade of the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam and died. An other drake mallard raped the corpse almost continuously for 75 minutes. Then the author disturbed the scene and secured the dead duck. Dissection showed that the rape-victim indeed was of the male sex. It is concluded that the mallards were engaged in an "Attempted Rape Flight" that resulted in the first described case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard."" OK, I guess that must make some sort of sense. Care to break it down for why that applies to me? "I'm also going to adopt your childish and annoying habit of copying and then answering each sentence." *Grins* I only do this to make sure I don't leave anything out as I take your arguments apart. "No dic...Ducky. Profanity is a way to get a point across. The point is you have made a number of ignorant, baseless statements and you backed them up with no logic. Why should I show you any intellectual respect, when you have obviously adopted a position on an issue with no fundamental understanding of its complexity." This doesn't make any sense. Profanity does not get your point across, it only is an attempt to drown out my point with irrelevant babble. I have an image of you stomping your feet with your fingers in your ears screaming "I'm not fucking listening! I'm not fucking listening!"
Yes. Fussy. " Again, yuo've adopted the position of of an idiot who himself doesn't grasp the concept. See, here's the problem. Kerry's liberal position says Viet Nam is bad, because innocent people are getting hurt. Viet Nam wasn't just about stopping the north from taking over the south. It was about stopping the spread of communism. This goal was articulated in a policy called Containment. " OK. Now you've contradicted yourself. You said earlier that Vietnam doesn't matter. Obviously it does. inTheJungle scores another point. "Containment as a policy is the last Grand Strategy this country had in foreign policy until this Bush Administration. It was developed and articulated by a Democrat - Truman (who I admire, so I'm clearly not anti-Democrat). Now I'm not gonna explain why Bush's vision is considered a Grand Strategy and Reagan/Carter/Nixon/Bush/Clinton's foreign policies weren't. This is complex reasoning and I don't want to lose you. For that explanation, I recommend you read: You may not believe me, but I know Professor Gaddis. In fact, I even took his class entitled "Grand Strategy," offered with another professor named Paul Kennedy. You might go ahead and read his book "We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History" (1997) to learn more. I understand perfectly why you won't explain his position to me. That is, you don't get it yourself.
Am I making any sense yet Ducky?" No. Containment in Vietnam failed, you idiot. We lost the war, and communism spread to Laos and Cambodia. inTheJungle scores yet another one.
Logical, consistent, and methodical gets you nowhere if you apply it incorrectly. You have to know what kind of battle you're fighting. You seem unaware that Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist before a communist. His goal was to unify the former territories of Tonkin, Annam, and Cochinchina under one Vietnamese government. Calling it a fight against communism was the first mistake we made. This was first and foremost a civil war for national unity. Only after Roosevelt and Truman ignored Ho's pleas for help did he turn to the communists. We didn't know our enemy. Read Neil Jameson's "Understanding Vietnam" before you continue further. Get educated, Major Dan.
You don't have to lecture me on the natures of statecraft. Kennedy used traditional methods of statecraft to enter the wrong war, idiot. "Then, it spun ought of control as Policy makers (as typically happens in Democratic administrations) began controlling the targetting process and forcing us to live by constraints that hamstrung the War effort. Consequently, we had to fight with one hand effectively tied behind our back. The Johnson administration didn't do this out of spite. LBJ was terrified that if we got to close to the Chinese border (read to far North in Viet Nam), the Chinese would pour across the barder the same way they poured across the Yalu in Korea15-20 years earlier. Some, but not all of those constraints made sense." Yep. Once we entered a dumb war, we fought it more or less in a stupid way, based both on domestic and international constraints. You seem to be omitting Nixon, though. Nixon continued this disastrous policy, only he promised us Peace with Honor through his secret plan. Too bad he was just as dumb as LBJ. It's almost comical how that silent majority lapped up the "secret plan" business. You should read more about the war from 1970 to 1972, when Nixon's instability really started to show up in his plans, like Operation LINEBACKER II and stuff like that. "Is this substantive enough for you Ducky. I'm trying to keep it simple...not as simple as when I'm using profanity, but simple anyway. Do I win yet?" You have to make a good point first.
Why would you be ashamed of finding out the truth? Is the truth shameful to you? What Bush may have done? I think that it certainly shows more balls, and more class, to admit being a conscientious objector than using daddy's political influence to land a plucky job in the National Guard and then spending most of my time screwing around and doing blow. Do you ever think that maybe some young man who actually deserved such a plumb assignment in the Nat'l Guard may have died in Vietnam so that Shrub could fly plains around Alabama and use drugs?
I'd love to see some evidence of that. Please do provide. What does the potential that Bill MAY hav used coke have to do with the fact that Georgie DEFINITELY did?
Good for you. I don't like Che anymore than you do, although you seem to get some sort of sick satisfaction out of death and killing. Are you a chickenhawk too? I tend to disagree with Maddox on a lot of issues, but I do think he is funny.
Pretty weak responses, actually. But then again, I don't expect much from you. "No Ducky, this is not the 1950s, even though the policy of containment was articulated then. Ga-Ne-Sha never questioned your patriotism, she simply asked if you were a communist. Communism is not a political ideology. It is an economic ideology. Hmmm...no I'm not gonna try and explain this one to you. I simply don't think you'd get it." I'm sorry, but you are so dumb. If you read Marx, Lenin, Mao, or any other communist thinker, the political part of the equation becomes clear.
So what you're saying is, "I can't hear you! I'm not listening!" Cute, son. Posted by: inTheJungle on February 14, 2004 12:50 PMEasy Bunghole...I mean Ducky. Just because you've read a book or two doesn't mean shit. Why don't you go out and try to actually live a little of what you're talking about. You're probably some dumfuck who goes to college and assumes that just because he/she's taking classes their opinion means something. I'm thinking PoliSci or History major (that'll help in the future!). Doesn't work like that. Any parrot can do what you're doing. Repeat what someone else said...squawk! I tried profanity, I tried reasoning with you, you don't seem to be capable of either. You're still a very bad Ducky. And I'm not quite sure that anyone has any use for you. Now go do your homework or your candy-ass loser...oops, I mean liberal professors will chew you up on Tuesday morning. Hey everyone else, Ducky's email server is through electricpenis.com. Isn't that clever? FUCKWIT Posted by: MAJ Dan Mulcahy on February 14, 2004 04:43 PMMajor Dan! I can see that you're taken aback. But please, you've made it too easy surrendering like that. I thought you'd fight a little harder than that to maintain your fantasy of intelligence and common sense. You should take two lessons from this exchange. First lesson: reflect on what you've said and how I've shown you to be incorrect. If you're smart, you'll be critical of your worldview. Hopefully you can learn something from this. I think that you can. The first question should be "Why do I support Bush?" He's not a man of character by any stretch of the matter. He's not a man of the people either. He's a privileged rich boy, an alcoholic cokehead failure, and he has no regrets. He lied to you just like he lied to me. A man of real character admits he's wrong. What makes you want to put up with it? You know what they say: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Your second question should be "Does Kerry's anti-Vietnam status mean that he's a man without honor?" Think about it. I'm not asking you to support him, because frankly, he's not my favorite either. But you should reconsider basing your view of him on Vietnam. He's a war hero who saw the ravages of a wrong war and came home to try to save the lives of innocent American men and innocent Vietnamese people. Whether or not you agree with his politics, that's honor. Second lesson: All of your swearing didn't make that much a difference, did it? Calling me names didn't make you right. You should revise your argument strategy so that you can portray yourself in a more positive light. It gives you more credibility. By the way, I know Professor Gaddis from several years ago, not from college. I have great respect for him. That's why I call him "Professor." Posted by: inTheJungle on February 14, 2004 05:48 PMHi Jungle, I will say that I appreciate the decorum you've shown. No matter how I fisked, the worst I could get you to say is that I'm an idiot. That's a good quality to have. It keeps one out of trouble during stressful situations. I would also like to say you have demonstrated a decent amount of intelligence. It's important to be able to synthesize and apply the ideas of others. Just don't forget to formulate your own ideas once you start having your own experiences. And don't confuse intelligence with cognitive capacity. I think you can teach the latter...haven't seen much empirical data that you can teach the former. Anyway, best of luck to you in your future endeavors. V/R MAJ Dan Posted by: MAJ Dan Mulcahy on February 14, 2004 06:10 PMMajor Dan! Let me first respond with "Wha?" Wasn't expecting that. That aside, best of luck to you too. Posted by: inTheJungle on February 14, 2004 07:00 PMDon't walk behind me, I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend. Posted by: Deangelis Andrea on May 3, 2004 12:31 PMPost a comment
|
|
All content © Rob Smith
|